Create Payment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'moves money', which explicitly discloses the financial consequence and clarifies the nature of the destructive action. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as idempotency, failure modes, or return value structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core action and consequence without any filler. All words contribute meaning, making it ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimal, but combined with the detailed schema (100% coverage) and annotations (destructive, open world), it provides enough for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, it lacks guidance on use cases and alternatives, and does not describe the return value or potential side effects beyond 'moves money', which keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'chargeable source' which aligns with the source_id parameter, but it does not provide any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., amount in centavos, currency default).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'charge' and identifies the resource as 'a chargeable source', clearly indicating this tool performs a direct charge to create a payment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_payment_intent, which creates an intent rather than an immediate charge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The phrase 'to create a payment' implies it is for immediate payment creation, but there is no explicit guidance for choosing this over create_payment_intent or other siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.